2018 (2) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate And  Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HPR/EXCUS/000/APPL-I/269/2016-17 dated 22/12/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Meerut. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engage....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 31/03/2010 held that M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd., was not a Laboratory competent to test as per the Policy Circular No. 33(RE-08)/2004-09 dated 30/09/2009 and therefore he directed to conduct the retest of random samples through laboratory, which is an Ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated 23/03/2016. The Original Authority has held in Para 27 of his OIO dated 22/02/2016 as follows:- '27. In the light of above discussions I am of the view   that as the Agmark standards have been followed while testing the rice so the testing report given by M/s SGS India, an APEDA registered and notified laboratory, is accepted under the provisions of DGFT Policy Circular No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not a qualified laboratory as per the Circular issued by the DGFT Revenue should not have once again relied on the test report given by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. for adjudication in the present matter. On going through Para 27 of the OIO it appears that the Original Authority did not understand the process of adjudication nor he has any knowledge of judicial disci....